The Arizona Court of Appeals held that an investment tax credit (ITC)
deferred as a tax asset has “value” and therefore is properly excluded from the taxable original cost of renewable energy equipment for Arizona property tax purposes. In so holding, the court rejected the argument that an ITC has no monetary worth until its owner derives an actual economic benefit from the ITC, i.e., by using it to reduce a federal income tax liability.
Pillsbury partners Jeff Vesely and Annie Huang will present “Market-Based Sourcing Issues in the Southwestern States with a Focus on California” during COST’s Pacific Southwest Regional State Tax Webinar on August 27.
There have been two interesting developments in Arizona as a result of Wayfair. First, the Arizona House of Representatives pushed forward a resolution, H.C.M. 2006, last week to formally ask Congress to enact uniform national legislation to simplify sales tax or similar tax collection by all states and to reduce the burden of tax compliance on remote sellers. In addition, the Arizona Senate pushed forward S.C.M. 1003, requesting Congress to do the same, on February 13. Each bill needs to be sent to the other chamber for final passage. If either bill is passed, the measure would be transmitted to the federal government. Arizona would be the first state requesting federal intervention to ensure sales tax compliance simplicity in all states by passing state legislation.
(This article originally was published by Law360 on January 16, 2020.)
The saga continues in Arizona v. California, Arizona’s U.S. Supreme Court challenge of California’s tax reach, but signs are strong it may be ending soon.
Last year, Arizona filed a motion to the court seeking to file a complaint against California under the court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between states.1 Arizona contends California assesses and enforces its doing business tax (i.e., an $800 annual and minimum tax imposed on businesses doing business in the state) so expansively that it unconstitutionally “reaches out-of-state companies that do not conduct any actual business in California, and indeed have no connection to the state except for purely passive investment in California companies.”2
(This article was originally published by Law360 on April 16, 2019.)
In recent years, many have openly criticized California for its income tax litigating position involving out-of-state companies that hold passive, minority interests in pass-through entities doing business in California. The state argues these out-of-state companies are doing business in California solely by virtue of their passive, minority investment in pass-throughs that conduct business in California. The state has lost the issue twice in the last two years. Most recently in September 2018 before an administrative appellate body in a nonprecedential decision involving a 25% passive ownership interest and the other in 2017 at the California Court of Appeal in a published decision involving a 0.2% passive ownership interest.
SeeSALT Blog